This submission is made by the University of Sydney Students’ Representative Council (USyd SRC), the peak representative body for undergraduate students at the University of Sydney. The SRC upholds the rights of all students to freedom of speech, political expression, assembly, and academic freedom. We are alarmed at the increasing repression of pro-Palestine activism and speech on our campus.
From the University of Sydney Students’ Representative Council (USyd SRC)
April 2025
Introduction
This submission is made by the University of Sydney Students’ Representative Council (USyd SRC), the peak representative body for undergraduate students at the University of Sydney. The SRC upholds the rights of all students to freedom of speech, political expression, assembly, and academic freedom. We are alarmed at the increasing repression of pro-Palestine activism and speech on our campus, particularly since October 2023, and we believe that our university’s conduct constitutes a serious breach of its obligations under human rights law, academic freedom protections, and its own stated principles.
Included is unique contributions for the SRC but as well collations from the SRC’s collectives, tangential organisations, as well as those sourced from an SRC submission form which was available on social media.
This submission draws on a wide array of examples to demonstrate:
- The discriminatory enforcement of protest policies;
- The use of bureaucratic mechanisms to target pro-Palestine students;
- The climate of surveillance, fear, and silencing created by the university;
- And the urgent need for structural change and policy repeal.
1. Suppression of Free Expression and Assembly
Repeatedly, the Campus Access Policy 2024 has been used to shut down fair political demonstrations and even bake sale fundraisers on the topic of Palestine. One of the cases that comes to mind relates to the NTEU’s National Day of Action for Palestine. This event involved speakers from many different groups and organisations, most of whom had no part in organising the demonstration. However, every speaker who was a student who spoke at the event was served a letter from the university's student affairs unit. The letter highlighted that the Campus Access Policy had been violated as this demonstration had been held without proper due notice, and that because such students spoke at the protest, they have been identified as potential organisers, hence the violation.
This case presents two examples of university policy being used to repress free speech. Firstly, the punishing of speakers at a protest who did not even organise such an action. This situation sets an awful precedent for future demonstrations and is a clear attack on free speech and expression. Speakers should not be punished for merely speaking. Secondly is demanding a specific type of notice. This day of action was advertised with many posters, flyers, social media, and postings on the online staff noticeboard. Yet speakers and organisers were punished because there was no effective notice. This is important because the organisers are politically against the Campus Access Policy, yet are effectively forced to comply with it.
The CAP’s requirement for notice of any demonstration is incompatible with international human rights standards, particularly those outlined in General Comment 37 of the UN Human Rights Committee, which emphasises the importance of spontaneous protest.
2. Surveillance and Targeting of Pro-Palestine Activists
The University of Sydney has cultivated an environment of surveillance and intimidation targeting pro-Palestine students and collectives. Notable examples include:
- Welcome Week 2025: The Queer Action Collective (QuAC) and the Autonomous Collective Against Racism (ACAR) were photographed daily and watched by security officers while displaying a “Queers for Palestine” banner. Other stalls were not subjected to this treatment.
- Encampment & Rally Crackdowns: Protesters were barred from key areas of campus. Students making announcements about Palestine in lectures were suspended. Leafleting was challenged by security, with students called “terrorists.”
- Art and Symbol Suppression: Pro-Palestine murals in the Graffiti Tunnel were erased. Palestinian flags were banned from being displayed at the December Info Day. These are not isolated incidents but part of a consistent pattern of disproportionate and discriminatory targeting of pro-Palestine expression.
3. The Case of Luna: Repression, Risk, and Refoulement
Perhaps the most egregious case is that of Luna, a transgender international student and asylum seeker from Malaysia. In January 2025, Luna wrote a series of non-permanent, erasable pro-Palestine statements on whiteboards using university-provided markers. These included factual statements about the death toll in Gaza and the university’s ties to arms manufacturers.
For this, Luna was accused of breaching four university policies — including the CAP — and threatened with suspension, a sanction that would have triggered the cancellation of her student visa and potentially led to her deportation to danger, in violation of international protections against refoulement.
Despite knowing of her asylum seeker status, the University:
- Denied Luna’s request to delay proceedings until she obtained a safer visa;
- Arbitrarily stretched policy definitions to categorise whiteboard messages as "property damage" and "unauthorised protest";
- Later claimed the suspension threat was an “administrative error” only after public pressure and media scrutiny.
Luna’s case made national and international news. Over 1,300 students, staff, and community members signed an open letter demanding all misconduct charges be dropped. At the time of writing, Luna still faces potential disciplinary action — a shameful testament to the University's prioritisation of censorship over student safety.
The use of policy to intimidate a trans asylum seeker for peaceful political expression is not only unconscionable — it is inhumane, racist, and transphobic, and constitutes a gross violation of the University’s duties.
4. Double Standards and Discriminatory Enforcement
We have observed clear unequal treatment between pro-Palestine and pro-Israel advocacy. Students supporting Palestine have been surveilled, banned from speaking in lectures, denied permits, and subjected to security intervention. No similar treatment has been applied to pro-Israel students or events. This indicates a politicised and discriminatory approach to enforcement.
5. Repressive Use of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
The University has repeatedly conflated pro-Palestine activism with antisemitism by referencing the IHRA definition. Posters written in Arabic have been labelled as“potentially violent,” slogans like intifada have been banned, and university-wide emails have smeared student activists as supporters of terrorism.
This misuse of the IHRA definition has chilled legitimate political speech and dangerously mischaracterised criticism of Israel as hate speech — in contradiction to academic freedom and antiracist principles.
6. Disciplinary Injustice and Absence of Natural Justice
Disciplinary action under the CAP and other policies is:
- Opaque and inconsistent, with decisions made behind closed doors;
- Lacking procedural fairness, with little recourse for appeal or review;
- Exploited to intimidate, including the issuance of mass “warnings” before major protests such as the National Day of Action for Palestine on March 26 and the Trans Day of Visibility rally on March 30.
Students have received notices stating their participation in unauthorised activities will be considered in future penalties, despite such actions being peaceful and protected forms of expression.
7. Recommendations
We call on the Inquiry to urgently recommend:
- Full repeal of the Campus Access Policy and all associated anti-protest measures.
- Cessation of all current and pending disciplinary actions related to peaceful pro-Palestine expression.
- Clear protections for spontaneous protest, as required by international law.
- Rejection of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in policy or practice when it is used to suppress legitimate political speech.
- Independent investigation into the case of Luna and a public apology from the University.
- Proactive support and protection for marginalised students, including asylum seekers, trans students, and students of colour, from the use of disciplinary processes as tools of repression.
- Establishment of an independent student-staff body to review future university policies that impact speech, protest, and student rights.
Conclusion
The University of Sydney has, through its policies and practices, cultivated a hostile environment for students who support Palestinian human rights. It has misused bureaucratic mechanisms to punish dissent, criminalised peaceful political activity, and endangered some of the most vulnerable members of our community.This submission demonstrates a clear pattern of repression that demands urgent and systemic change. The University must be held accountable for the ways in which it has failed its students, violated human rights, and betrayed its own public commitments to justice, equity, and intellectual freedom.
Submitted by:
University of Sydney Students’ Representative Council (USyd SRC)
April 2025